i prefer an upgrade of the "package" (language ?) around the P2Pool installation ... before all others stuff.P2Pool node (server) is really hard to install from a profane/rooky view.And many links around Python (twisted ?) are old, too (ie. 64 bits instructions to keep the path).

I talk about this because many noobs in my part of the -french- forum don't really understand how to set a P2Pool node ... easly on all available OS.

I started the thematic chat https://t.me/p2pool in the Telegram messenger https://telegram.org/Join, share opinions, ask questions. Owners of nodes can publish addresses, exchange the source code of p2pools for different coins there.Chat is multilanguage. Those who do not know languages, install the bot-translator http://telegram.me/ytranslatebot to the messenger

That's because new shares aren't 1MB yet as your fork allows. Then again you advocate making Bitcoin's block size limit infinite...

New shares are already as big as they're going to get in the absence of explicitly malicious behavior or Bitcoin blocksize increases.

Do you mean in the sense that nobody has attacked the p2pool network with large, difficult-to-propagate shares, as an adjunct to doing a selfish mining attack, because somehow that's easier than just renting a bunch of hashrate on Nicehash and 51% attacking p2pool?

Or intentionally creating large shares with the intent of forcing low-bandwidth miners off of p2pool and onto other pools because somehow there's an incentive for someone to want to do that?

Keep in mind that with a 1 MB block size limit, the only way to have shares that require 1 MB of network traffic is to create block templates that use transactions that nobody has heard of before (i.e. transactions you created yourself). This also requires hacking p2pool so that it does not notify peers of transactions when they're first seen (i.e. disabling the have_tx p2p message). Normally, shares require only 2 to 32 bytes per transaction when transmitted regardless of the transaction size, but the 50 kB/1 MB limits apply to the total summed size of the transactions (e.g. 500 bytes).

Even to the extent these attacks are possible, they wouldn't be very effective. If you want to DoS someone, there are much easier ways than mining big shares.

Just some humor for perspective... Digital consensus is the easy part, the human part is far more difficult to obtain. We are all P2Poolers, and discourse to improve the software is going well. Perhaps we should use more formal improvement channels, such as GitHub? Just a thought.

That is a red herring of an argument at best. For those who believe Satoshi is a god as you so finely put it, you missed the clear and obvious argument that it was Satoshi that introduced the 1mb block size limit. However, "who" introduced the change has nothing to do with my argument. The fact is that it is an arbitrary limitation that only constrains things and does not really solve the flooding problem. It only limits it.

I think the proper response to our little flamewar is to bring popcorn.

veqtrus makes some good technical comments and observations at times, and I value his contributions. However, when he trolls me on how my fork is gonna doom p2pool to a centralized future, I think the proper response is to troll him back, laugh it off, and move on.

I'm not very good at trolling, though. Maybe I should ask Kano for a lesson.

The fact is that it is an arbitrary limitation that only constrains things and does not really solve the flooding problem. It only limits it.

Indeed, the solution is to reserve the blockchain mostly for higher value transaction which can afford higher fees and move low value transactions which don't require the security of the blockchain to off-chain systems, preferably decentralized ones like LN.